 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 802 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 03:03 am |
|
I was curious if the guest said he was baptized Catholic? He said he had absolutely no formation religiously bbut that he was baptized and his dad was protestant. Fast forward in the story and it seems like he is going to confession and receiving the Blessed Sacrament at some retreat with no mention of actually making a decision to become Catholic. Did I miss something? Or was God's plan for his life slightly different than the normal process of formally becoming Catholic? It sure was a powerful story though. I was so excited to see how much he strives to share the good news of God's love with people. It reminded me a bit too.
The only other thing I wondered was that he happened to offer the idea that he was convinced that Catholicism was true because of personal experience. There is nothing wrong with sharing this because it is his personal stroy and it is encouraging. However, I have met many who would claim personal experience to have led them out of the church. I trust watching the show that God was definitely leading him and you can not argue with the results. I just started to think, well what if it was not a Catholic organization but some protestant or charismatic group that invited him to something and he had a similar experience? Would he have said that those churches taught the truth because that was where he personally experienced God?
But I do not want o be critical. I just wonder of that would be convincing to me if I were watching from a critical point of view as a non-Catholic. Still, he seemed to be very Catholic in his lifestyle and to know a good deal about his faith and this was encouraging. Perhaps there is a time for apologetics and a time to say 'one thing I do know, I was blind and now I see'
Some in this culture seem to think that since nobody believes in truth anymore we should try not to argue with reasoning which is going out of style, but relationally and through kindness and sharing stories are the ways to engage a post-modern culture. I see some validity to this, especially of living a holy life to make our faith seem convincing, but I still think people in general will always need actual solid answers to theological questions at some point. It gets hard to tell sometimes which approach to take when. But the Holy Spirit will guide us.
Brian
Last edited on Tue Jul 17th, 2007 03:04 am by brian
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 281 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 09:58 am |
|
Yea Brian, I'd like more detail too.
I wonder if John Pridmore just skipped over the part where he took instruction for time's sake on the show.
His story of baptism wasn't clear to me either - I'd gotten the impression he'd been baptized Catholic.
John made references to "infused" knowledge as an explanation of how he got from nothingness to Catholicism, as he felt he was led in a certain direction while not having been educated in any religion or concept of God. He must have picked it up somewhere as he demonstrated good knowledge of the Faith. In answer to a caller he said the existence of the Sacraments brought him to the Church. It does make me wonder for more details on how this came about.
I wonder if he skipped over investigating other religions for the sake of time?
His web site JohnPridmore.com doesn't offer much detail. Maybe his book will explain more.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
NanaR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 165 |
| First Name: | Ruth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Born JW, born-again Catholic (Tiber Swim Team 2008) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 10:40 am |
|
Brian,
This is my third try at replying to this post. The computer ate the other two :-(
Anyway --
My comment is that each one of us is different, and the Lord reaches us in different ways. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, was very active in that faith for over four decades, and was well trained in JW apologetics. I did not "leave" the Witnesses because I did not believe what they taught. On the contrary, I continued to believe that their doctrine was correct for several years after I abandoned the "faith". As a result, I believed that I was wicked and was going to die and be dead forever simply because I had rejected THEM.
In other words, my mind continued to be held captive by their concepts long after my feet had voted me out.
In order to reach me, the Lord had to bypass my brain and go straight for my heart. And he did :-)
I expect that John omitted many details of his journey simply due to lack of time in the television show. However, I would also ask you this -- Do you believe it is possible for people who don't know how to read and who have no formal education to become Christians, to become Catholic?
From what I have read of your opinions, I would assume that you would answer this question in the affirmative.
That being said, I would assume that it is also possible for the Lord to move the heart of someone who has education but no religious formation, someone who knows, understands, and manipulates human nature but who has not come to understand or accept divine nature.
Just because there are false representations of Spirit in the world does not mean there are no valid Charisms of the Holy Spirit on the earth today.
And just because people have become convinced by personal experiences to leave the Catholic Church does not invalid the personal experiences of those who have come to Christ and His true Church as a direct result of personal faith experiences.
Apologetics and reason are the structure that support faith, but faith itself is a Grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit. As such, I believe "infused" is as good a word as any to describe what happened to me at my very first attendance at a Catholic mass. The Lord went directly for my heart. Now he also has my brain :-)
I look forward to reading Mr. Pridmore's book and learning more about his journey.
Peace,
Ruth
____________________
When you bend down to help someone up, that is the best exercise for your heart. -- Fr. Noe, 2007
http://nanaruthann.blogspot.com
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 802 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 02:12 pm |
|
NanaR wrote: Brian,
Do you believe it is possible for people who don't know how to read and who have no formal education to become Christians, to become Catholic?
From what I have read of your opinions, I would assume that you would answer this question in the affirmative.
That being said, I would assume that it is also possible for the Lord to move the heart of someone who has education but no religious formation, someone who knows, understands, and manipulates human nature but who has not come to understand or accept divine nature.
Just because there are false representations of Spirit in the world does not mean there are no valid Charisms of the Holy Spirit on the earth today.
And just because people have become convinced by personal experiences to leave the Catholic Church does not invalid the personal experiences of those who have come to Christ and His true Church as a direct result of personal faith experiences.
Apologetics and reason are the structure that support faith, but faith itself is a Grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit. As such, I believe "infused" is as good a word as any to describe what happened to me at my very first attendance at a Catholic mass. The Lord went directly for my heart. Now he also has my brain :-)
Do not get me wrong. I totally agree with you. Completely. My only objections would be if one never double checked to the best of their ability what or why they believed something. Experience can lead us astray, but truth can not. For some who are less capable of reading and researching, perhaps heart and intuition and trust and experience play a larger role. I do not know. Nor do I at all question this man's journey. It is obvious to me that God got Him in the way God wanted to get him. Faith is indeed a gift, and if one is given it in whatever means, one should accept. I would be equally leary of anyone who trusted too much in reasoning or apologetics or intellect to say they believed if they never seemed to seek to personally interact with those truths.
I wholeheartedly embrace his story and yours as well. My issue was more over how someone looking from the outside may be able to question it, or to say that there were some elements that might be lacking to somebody who wanted to watch a show to convince them based on reseacrchable material like history or scripture why the Catholic church is true. But I am being too critical, because the JH is great because it is about perspective. And if one watches enough episodes they will see all kinds of people from all kinds of backgrounds coming home to the Catholic church for all kinds of reasons. So this was just another powerful presentation of the work of God calling home a prodigal.
My point was that were it the only Journey Home episode somebody watched, perhaps they could have reasons to question if his story was based on experience or truth. But the beautful and negative thing is that nobody can argue with expereience. That is why if we are asked difficult questions it means more that we live our faith and show our holiness than strive to be smarter than we are capable of. The downside is that there are people of all religions who have good experiences and holy lives, so a potential convert may need to eventually look for solid explanations as well. But everyone is different. Perhaps this is why Paul was a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks that he might win as many as possible. That is also why I love the Journey Home program. I could probably recommend just about any episode to somebody I know.
My only concern about the story, was how he was able to receive the sacraments without first formally converting, which should have required at least some level of discerning the truth of the faith. I do not know the Catholic Church to just let people in these days because of experience without some time with the priest or in RCIA. So his conversion I do not question. The details of his entering the church seemed to be missing something to me, unless he was indeed baptized Catholic which would clear them all up. But then would he not technically be called a revert? I mean I know he had no formation, but if he was baptized Catholic that technically means he always was a Catholic and whether having lived 10 minutes or 10 years as a Catholic he would be called a revert technically? Though I suppose practically someone like that who never knew or believed anything about God I would informally call a convert due to he fact that they were first gaining personal faith, which is a crucial part of anyone's conversion. But from a strictly theological point of view he was a Christian at his baptism.
Brian
PS: I know your question was more rhetorical, but I love that God requires no amount of intelligence, and accepts babies, developmentally disabled, smart people, foolish people, all people etc. I am so glad it does not depend on reaching any level of academic intelligence and could be taught through stanined glass windows, or sacramental realities, and of course it had o be on the times when people could not read. This is why the church is so important in the role of slavation. It is her responsibility to show it to all in ways that all can understand.
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2069 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 05:38 pm |
|
My only concern about the story, was how he was able to receive the sacraments without first formally converting.
I agree with you, Brian (and with the others here), that John P. did not make clear into which body he had been baptized. Nor did he state what his mother’s religion was. But he was rather emphatic about his father’s religion being Protestant, which leads me to believe that this was his tacit way of saying that his mother was (at least nominally) Catholic, and that he had been baptized Catholic as an infant. This would explain why he did not need to “convert” in the sense of being formally received into the Catholic Church.
But then would he not technically be called a revert? I mean I know he had no formation, but if he was baptized Catholic that technically means he always was a Catholic and whether having lived 10 minutes or 10 years as a Catholic he would be called a revert technically?
Use of the word “revert” was coined just a few years ago by media host and author Jeff Cavins, himself a returnee to Catholicism after having spent some years as an Evangelical. It is not an official term. But you do have the basic idea; I believe this is what John P. meant to convey in his story. According to the Church’s spiritual tradition, what happened to him would be called “conversion of life.”
I suppose practically someone like that who never knew or believed anything about God I would informally call a convert due to he fact that they were first gaining personal faith, which is a crucial part of anyone's conversion.
Officially, this process is known as evangelization or catechesis. Compare CCC 1231:
Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.
John P.’s “post-baptismal catechumenate” had to wait until he was well into adulthood. This is unfortunately quite a common occurrence and almost always the result of a failure on the part of those responsible for a person’s upbringing and catechesis.
I also agree with John P.’s assessment of his rather sudden conversion as having the character of “infused” grace and knowledge which turned his head and heart together toward Christ. You have discussed when one or the other separately has received the grace of conversion, whereas what is needed in the end is both together.
Interesting, too, was his search for “the true religion.” This was revealed to him through the ministry of a priest. But it was also revealed as something that had been there all the time, but he had been blind to it. Again, there seemed to be an infusion of grace which revealed to him where the truth lay.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5343 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17th, 2007 09:33 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: My only concern about the story, was how he was able to receive the sacraments without first formally converting.
I agree with you, Brian (and with the others here), that John P. did not make clear into which body he had been baptized. Nor did he state what his mother’s religion was. But he was rather emphatic about his father’s religion being Protestant, which leads me to believe that this was his tacit way of saying that his mother was (at least nominally) Catholic, and that he had been baptized Catholic as an infant. This would explain why he did not need to “convert” in the sense of being formally received into the Catholic Church.
I did not see the program, but we may safely assume that he was baptized into the Catholic Church if a priest was prepared to offer him absolution and admit him to the Blessed Sacrament. A priest would not meet with someone, especially at a retreat, and not verify that the person he was speaking to was eligible to receive the sacraments validly.
But then would he not technically be called a revert?
Use of the word “revert” was coined just a few years ago by media host and author Jeff Cavins, himself a returnee to Catholicism after having spent some years as an Evangelical. It is not an official term.
And for that matter, neither is "convert". When a person who was once not Catholic joins the Church, they become Catholic. "Convert" is a convenient term (as is "revert") but neither is used in any Church documents.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 07:04 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
